A mirror of the eeesite "A Song of Ice and Fire"

This is a mirror of the now defunct eesite ASOIAF webboard.

The discussions for G.R.R. Martin's awesome series "A Song of Ice and Fire" are now being held at: Current ASoIaF Webboard

You cannot post new messages to this board. Go to the Current ASoIaF Webboard for the most current discussions.

A Song of Ice and Fire / A Song of Ice and Fire / George RR Martin vs. Terry Brooks

Next 20 Messages

Cool Knight Ron
User ID: 9670323 Feb 18th 12:10 PM
Anyone have any input???

I think the Heritage of Shannarra series was awesome...

Dirjj
User ID: 6960173 Feb 18th 2:54 PM
That series sucked!!!

Well, those are my two points. To me, his best works were the first two Shannara books. Those were boss. The Heritage series didn't make any sense.

ab

Generic Eric
User ID: 8339223 Feb 18th 3:55 PM
I thought the Heritage series was pretty good, although it has been quite some time since I have read it...probably around age 13-14, when I would have thought anything was good. Heck, at that time, I thought David Eddings was good.

I would have to re-read Brooks to make and educated comment on the quality.

mauer
User ID: 0777594 Feb 19th 1:56 AM
Brooks is good, esp. Elfstones (Scions was good, too), but as far as realistic characterizations & true-to-life storytelling, no one beats Martin as far as I'm concerned.

Street Prophet
User ID: 2107894 Feb 19th 2:41 AM
The unfortunate problem with Brooks is that once you've read one Shanarra book you've pretty much read them all. I can't remember specific details from any book because he uses the same method again and again. Small journey, mismatched company, some kind of demons taking them out one by one, big battle at the end with disaster suddenly diverted by hero or heroes. They are enjoyable to read at the time, but you just can't distinguish them from each other at all.
Martin is best by far.

Dirjj
User ID: 6960173 Feb 22nd 2:28 PM
The Heritage of Shannara was a series, but it was easily 4 stand along novels. Taken singularly, they were good, but as a series, it sucked. None of the books were really tied together.

Street Prophet - Also, all high fantasy up until recently consisted of a journey with mis-matched character fighting bad guys (demons, evil men, etc...), so you can nit-pick Brooks old style, but that would be kinda silly, since everyone wrote that way.

ab

Richie
User ID: 9816503 Apr 18th 8:56 AM
I kinda have this feeling that Brooks was for the little kids, 11-13, while RJ and GRRM belongs to the grown-ups. I feel I would be too young to understand the complexities of RJ and GRRM at 13. Brooks was my favourite until I was 15, then I kinda lost touch with him.

Brooks is too simple compared to the plots that RJ and GRRm created. But it was a nice and leasurely read. Plust there is no obcenities in Brook's book. It was very fairy tale like...

My two cents.... :)

Son of Hot Pie!!!
User ID: 0276214 May 11th 6:20 PM
I enjoyed Brook's first three Shannara books,
but never read the many thereafter. Started the first one of Heritage, but it just didn't do it for me.

Loved the First King of Shannara though.

There's really no way of saying he's better than GRRM even if more of TB's books are bought as mentioned by someone in recommended books.

That aside, he writes a nice fairy tale structure of simplicity and wonder that many fantasy lovers appreciate. He especially appeals to younger
readers and after Tolkien, he isn't a bad starting base.

Great battle scenes, above average characters, pretty good tales that are more or less taken from mythology and what not.

I know that most of you seem to love bashing the guy but I would place him above GOODKIND, JORDAN,
MCKIERNAN, DAVID DRAKE, EDDINGS, JOEL ROSENBERG . . . and, hate to say it, but Tad William's fantasy trilogy. I really wanted to like the DRAGONBONE CHAIR but it moved too slowly and I got tired after the first 300 pages of waiting for something interesting to transpire. I guess I'm not as patient as I used to be.

If you're more of a mature or veteran fantasy reader who had read dozens upon dozens of books, Brooks isn't going to give you anything new really. But, if you're new to the fantasy genre and want something light and happy, Brooks is a good start.

Jeff
User ID: 1536664 May 12th 2:30 PM
Son of, that's a pretty good point. I read Sword of Shannara a few years after first reading Lord of the Rings, and the ripoff was so blatant it scars my soul to this day. But if I had read it first, I might have a better opinion of it.

sparhawk
User ID: 0436494 May 12th 2:34 PM
TRUE, JEFF. SWORD OF SHANNARA IS A BLATANT rip off of tlotr.
everyone seems to admit to reading brooks around the ages 13-14, and that seems about right. brooks' work appeals to the younger people - it hasn't got the gritty, realistic edge that GRRM has.
dirrjj, you make a good point concerning the four stand alone novels, but i can't really take you seriously, as you are under the misguided impression that robin hobb can actually write!!!

Son of Hot Pie!!!
User ID: 0276214 May 17th 11:11 PM
Jeff,

Why are you always reading books that you know you hate after the first chapter? I've heard you complain about Brooks, McKiernan and probably some other authors.

Just stop. You can do it!!!

BTW: For all you Brook's fans out there . . . :D . . . I noticed at DONE DEAL that his novel . . . MAGIC KINGDOM FOR SALE: SOLD! . . . its been bought by Hollywood for a possible movie to go into production.

Whoo hoo . . . I bet Jeff is soooo happy now.

REMEMBER, THE SEED IS STRONG!!!

Jeff
User ID: 1536664 May 18th 8:39 AM
Sometimes, its out of a sheer sense of awe. I remember reading Sword of Shannara, and not believing that anyone could have written such a blatant ripoff. So I continued out of curiousity -- did Brooks really have the cojones to do a complete ripoff? Sure enough, he did.

The Iron Tower Trilogy was basically the same thing. I will almost always finish a book or series I start if only to find out how it ends. That's why I'll finish WOT if Jordan ever does. But after almost two books of Iron Tower, I figured out that I already knew the ending because I read LOTR.

As for a Brooks movie, I don't really care. I've heard his later stuff was better.

Son of Hot Pie!!!
User ID: 0276214 May 18th 6:43 PM
Jeff,

You're a true masochist. :)

Son of Hot Pie!!!
User ID: 0276214 May 19th 9:47 PM
Jeff,

Wasn't there a big discussion on the reading boards about LOTR and SWORD? From what I read, it was inconclusive. Both sides had some good points.

I still remember ELFSTONES being one of his better works and several others, who like Brooks, seem to agree.

Wouldn't say he's only for young teen agers though, although they may very well make up part of his readership.

From what I've read about the fantasy industry, I gather that readers fall into two categories:

(1) The typical young male fantasy reader who wants a sense of wonder, as well as a black and white interpretation of good and evil . . . prefers the typical hero to be a young male on a mythical quest (either literally or figuratively), who is unmarried and heterosexual . . . Historical references of the land are good, too . . . good defeats Evil in the end . . . story must have one or two hooks to it that are not normally done . . . sometimes this reader doesn't evolve to the next
stage and prefers the same stories over and over . . . sort of like someone who always wants to watch typical western movies with the big showdowns at the end. :)

OR

(2) The jaded or veteran fantasy reader who has read dozens, if not hundreds, of fantasy books . . . wants something very different . . . prefers a more gritty world to reflect the world he/she lives in . . . is open to shades of gray in the characters . . . doesn't get angry if the typical rules are turned on their head or tossed out . . . tends to put much more emphasis on characters, plotting, dialogue and surprise.

The majority of readers who like Brooks are probably in category #1. Or, graduate to category #2. Some of the latter category people never want to touch Brooks again but some, like myself, don't mind going back once in a while for the sake of the memory.

Maybe that makes a little more sense in the understanding? I think most fantasy readers need to start in category #1 before they can graduate to category #2 to appreciate the nuances that GRRM writes in his current series.

If a first time fantasy reader were to read GRRM, I don't think it would be as enjoyable. Better to have read several other #1 books before GRRM.

Anyway, hope that clarifies some.

Remember, THE SEED IS STRONG!!! HUBBA, HUBBA!!!

labor
User ID: 0798784 May 20th 5:19 AM
Hm... IMHO if one has read and is fan of Tolkien, one cannot really warm to Brooks. The "similarities" are too jarring. Writing and plot also seem quite disappointing, IMHO. Maybe it is just because I'm not male, but Brooks always made me angry even when I wasn't a jaded fantasy reader.
I enthusiastically read such rather crappy books as "Dragonlance" (the whole of the series, even with some fill-in franchise novels), Lackey, "TSR" or was it "Forgotten realms", mostly Salvatore's Drizzt etc. But not Brooks and not MacKiernan.
They really seemed like very poor imitations of Tolkien to me. Not that I didn't object to rampant uses of Tolkien-like races in "Dragonlance" etc. But at least the stories, fluff as they are, are different.

There is a writer in Russia who followed in Brooks steps and wrote a series something "of Darkness". Nik Perumov. The main character is a hobbit turned unparalled fighter and it ends with him defeating Feanor in a duel in the Blessed Realm. The "heroes" defeat the Valar, breach the border between the worlds and find themselves in another world. Yuck!
Thankfully, the copyright issues didn't allow Brooks to go quite that far...

Jeff
User ID: 8813033 May 20th 8:49 AM
SOHP, I wouldn't disagree with the way you broke things down. I pretty much followed the path you set out, starting at No. 1 and moving to No. 2. I can "go back" and enjoy No. 1 stories if they are well done and not too derivative. But I agree with labor that, if you've read LOTR first, you really won't enjoy Sword of Shannara or Iron Tower. As for Brooks' other books, I haven't read them so I can't comment.

Kristin
User ID: 9892733 May 20th 3:35 PM
SOHP, the same thing happened to me when I started reading Dragonbone Chair. I was bored just about to tears, and I don't even think I got 300 pages into it. Then, about a year later, I started Williams' Otherland series, and really, REALLY liked it. I decided to give Memory, Sorrow and Thorn another try recently. It wasn't as boring as I remembered it. It's not all that exciting either, but I'm having an okay time reading it.

Son of Hot Pie!!!
User ID: 0276214 May 20th 11:27 PM
Jeff,

I read both of those novels in high school when I wasn't too choosy so I don't remember. I certainly don't compare or analyze things as I do now so maybe that was a good thing.

Didn't give SWORD another try, but I did try
reading Tolkien again. THE HOBBIT was easy reading, since it was written more for children from my understanding, but after about 150 pages in THE TWO TOWERS, it was really getting hard for me.

I'm not knocking Tolkien at all. His pacing was pretty slow in certain parts and unless you're getting into something else, it can be hard at times. Guess I'm a blockbuster child who wants things to move with several subplots on the side.

Kristin,

That's about where I got about two years ago . . . 300 pages when Simon and the little guy were on this long trip and Simon couldn't shut the guy up.
You know . . . those long journeys where nothing big is happening so somebody just starts to yap and yap. :)

I think I stopped b/c I wanted something to entertain me more. If a novel doesn't catch my interest in the first 30 pages or so, I drop it.

There's really a lot of great books out there so I'd either try a new one or go back to one of my old favorites. And, if not that, I could always read a book on finance or personal power . . . or, just watch a favorite movie on tape.

Right now, I'm reading David Morrel (spy thriller), rereading AGOT and COK while I do a book analysis chapter by chapter (pretty slow and about an hour or so per chapter) . . . when I'm done with that, my next fictional novel will be THE JACKAL OF NAR since it's getting good reviews here and elsewhere.

And, I also ordered Hobb and Judith Tarr by the advice of GRRM on the Legend's board.

Labor,

I've read some DRAGONLANCE novels. I think most of them are pretty simple and easy going fantasy.
I can't say the first original trilogy was beyond some enjoyment, but there were a few later ones that were very good; not great or superb . . . just pretty good.

Never read the Russian writer. I imagine there were a lot of fantasy writers who started out
using Tolkien as their source. Guy Gavriel Kay apparently did this and then moved on towards his own voice.

I suppose a beginning writer can use some author
to emulate, but if they're going to thrive and remain fresh, they need to develop their own voice, style and ideas over time.

That's only one of the reasons I appreciate GRRM so much. He's developed a fresh idea, using History as his compass, but tossed things around to keep us on our toes. Also, unlike say Jordan or Tad Williams, he doesn't go into a ton of exposition for pages and pages and pages. For the most part, you'll notice that he slips a few bits and pieces in as the story moves forward.

Criticisms aside, I have to tip my hat off to the fantasy writers I don't appreciate. Even the ones we make fun of on these boards, got past several others who were never published or whose manuscripts probably made the reader puke. Yes, even McKiernan, Jeff! :)

labor
User ID: 0798784 May 21st 6:02 AM
Well, I hate it when a writer makes free of another writer's world and either just retells the same story once again, but less well, or turns everything upside down, butchering the atmosphere with inferior writing.

Warlike halflings who kidnap High Elven princesses and sell them on a slave market (as in one of Perumov's later novels) make me furious. Did he find his own voice? Difficult to say with someone who writes in a manner of bad translation from English.

Kay's saving grace is that he is a fine writer. I love him even more than Martin, but still could never get into "Fionovar" trilogy. But I concede, that it is the best Tolkien imitation there is.

BTW, Martin is not that original, if you mean that Martin's "fresh" idea was to depict a more or less "realistic" and ruthless medieval society in fantasy, with good characters dying and the shades of grey. Kurtz, Kay and a lot of Arthuriana were there before him. None of this diminishes my admiration for ASOIAF.

Conrad de'Medici
User ID: 9189423 Jul 28th 4:09 PM
Why is it people insist on comparing authors? I've just wasted half an hour of my life reading this stuff. Brooks is Brooks - Martin is Martin -
Salvatore is Salvatore - Tolkein is a legend!

Terry brooks bores the life out of me, Martin makes me think I'm living in the wrong era and Salvatore is a Tolkein clone, much like all the Dragonlance and Forgotten Realms novels none would exist without Tolkein and I would be saddened without them.
But as for comparing Martin with Tolkein! The two are so unique its surreal.

Tolkein was skipping with Elves and Goblins for the most part and spending his entire life creating a flawless history to a world he created.

Martin, well, what can I say? He loves his history and I wouldn't want to argue with him about it. Hes just taken events, places and people and pushed them into his own world.
If the world came to an end and the god's decided to choose a mortal to create a new one. They would have to go with Martin!

Agh! This is long. I should end it. The only thing I don't want to see end is ASOIAF. (Sighs)

Martin you are a LEGEND!

Next 20 Messages

Cool Knight Ron User ID: 9670323	Feb 18th 12:10 PM Anyone have any input??? I think the Heritage of Shannarra series was awesome...
Dirjj User ID: 6960173	Feb 18th 2:54 PM That series sucked!!! Well, those are my two points. To me, his best works were the first two Shannara books. Those were boss. The Heritage series didn't make any sense. ab
Generic Eric User ID: 8339223	Feb 18th 3:55 PM I thought the Heritage series was pretty good, although it has been quite some time since I have read it...probably around age 13-14, when I would have thought anything was good. Heck, at that time, I thought David Eddings was good. I would have to re-read Brooks to make and educated comment on the quality.
mauer User ID: 0777594	Feb 19th 1:56 AM Brooks is good, esp. Elfstones (Scions was good, too), but as far as realistic characterizations & true-to-life storytelling, no one beats Martin as far as I'm concerned.
Street Prophet User ID: 2107894	Feb 19th 2:41 AM The unfortunate problem with Brooks is that once you've read one Shanarra book you've pretty much read them all. I can't remember specific details from any book because he uses the same method again and again. Small journey, mismatched company, some kind of demons taking them out one by one, big battle at the end with disaster suddenly diverted by hero or heroes. They are enjoyable to read at the time, but you just can't distinguish them from each other at all. Martin is best by far.
Dirjj User ID: 6960173	Feb 22nd 2:28 PM The Heritage of Shannara was a series, but it was easily 4 stand along novels. Taken singularly, they were good, but as a series, it sucked. None of the books were really tied together. Street Prophet - Also, all high fantasy up until recently consisted of a journey with mis-matched character fighting bad guys (demons, evil men, etc...), so you can nit-pick Brooks old style, but that would be kinda silly, since everyone wrote that way. ab
Richie User ID: 9816503	Apr 18th 8:56 AM I kinda have this feeling that Brooks was for the little kids, 11-13, while RJ and GRRM belongs to the grown-ups. I feel I would be too young to understand the complexities of RJ and GRRM at 13. Brooks was my favourite until I was 15, then I kinda lost touch with him. Brooks is too simple compared to the plots that RJ and GRRm created. But it was a nice and leasurely read. Plust there is no obcenities in Brook's book. It was very fairy tale like... My two cents.... :)
Son of Hot Pie!!! User ID: 0276214	May 11th 6:20 PM I enjoyed Brook's first three Shannara books, but never read the many thereafter. Started the first one of Heritage, but it just didn't do it for me. Loved the First King of Shannara though. There's really no way of saying he's better than GRRM even if more of TB's books are bought as mentioned by someone in recommended books. That aside, he writes a nice fairy tale structure of simplicity and wonder that many fantasy lovers appreciate. He especially appeals to younger readers and after Tolkien, he isn't a bad starting base. Great battle scenes, above average characters, pretty good tales that are more or less taken from mythology and what not. I know that most of you seem to love bashing the guy but I would place him above GOODKIND, JORDAN, MCKIERNAN, DAVID DRAKE, EDDINGS, JOEL ROSENBERG . . . and, hate to say it, but Tad William's fantasy trilogy. I really wanted to like the DRAGONBONE CHAIR but it moved too slowly and I got tired after the first 300 pages of waiting for something interesting to transpire. I guess I'm not as patient as I used to be. If you're more of a mature or veteran fantasy reader who had read dozens upon dozens of books, Brooks isn't going to give you anything new really. But, if you're new to the fantasy genre and want something light and happy, Brooks is a good start.
Jeff User ID: 1536664	May 12th 2:30 PM Son of, that's a pretty good point. I read Sword of Shannara a few years after first reading Lord of the Rings, and the ripoff was so blatant it scars my soul to this day. But if I had read it first, I might have a better opinion of it.
sparhawk User ID: 0436494	May 12th 2:34 PM TRUE, JEFF. SWORD OF SHANNARA IS A BLATANT rip off of tlotr. everyone seems to admit to reading brooks around the ages 13-14, and that seems about right. brooks' work appeals to the younger people - it hasn't got the gritty, realistic edge that GRRM has. dirrjj, you make a good point concerning the four stand alone novels, but i can't really take you seriously, as you are under the misguided impression that robin hobb can actually write!!!
Son of Hot Pie!!! User ID: 0276214	May 17th 11:11 PM Jeff, Why are you always reading books that you know you hate after the first chapter? I've heard you complain about Brooks, McKiernan and probably some other authors. Just stop. You can do it!!! BTW: For all you Brook's fans out there . . . :D . . . I noticed at DONE DEAL that his novel . . . MAGIC KINGDOM FOR SALE: SOLD! . . . its been bought by Hollywood for a possible movie to go into production. Whoo hoo . . . I bet Jeff is soooo happy now. REMEMBER, THE SEED IS STRONG!!!
Jeff User ID: 1536664	May 18th 8:39 AM Sometimes, its out of a sheer sense of awe. I remember reading Sword of Shannara, and not believing that anyone could have written such a blatant ripoff. So I continued out of curiousity -- did Brooks really have the cojones to do a complete ripoff? Sure enough, he did. The Iron Tower Trilogy was basically the same thing. I will almost always finish a book or series I start if only to find out how it ends. That's why I'll finish WOT if Jordan ever does. But after almost two books of Iron Tower, I figured out that I already knew the ending because I read LOTR. As for a Brooks movie, I don't really care. I've heard his later stuff was better.
Son of Hot Pie!!! User ID: 0276214	May 18th 6:43 PM Jeff, You're a true masochist. :)
Son of Hot Pie!!! User ID: 0276214	May 19th 9:47 PM Jeff, Wasn't there a big discussion on the reading boards about LOTR and SWORD? From what I read, it was inconclusive. Both sides had some good points. I still remember ELFSTONES being one of his better works and several others, who like Brooks, seem to agree. Wouldn't say he's only for young teen agers though, although they may very well make up part of his readership. From what I've read about the fantasy industry, I gather that readers fall into two categories: (1) The typical young male fantasy reader who wants a sense of wonder, as well as a black and white interpretation of good and evil . . . prefers the typical hero to be a young male on a mythical quest (either literally or figuratively), who is unmarried and heterosexual . . . Historical references of the land are good, too . . . good defeats Evil in the end . . . story must have one or two hooks to it that are not normally done . . . sometimes this reader doesn't evolve to the next stage and prefers the same stories over and over . . . sort of like someone who always wants to watch typical western movies with the big showdowns at the end. :) OR (2) The jaded or veteran fantasy reader who has read dozens, if not hundreds, of fantasy books . . . wants something very different . . . prefers a more gritty world to reflect the world he/she lives in . . . is open to shades of gray in the characters . . . doesn't get angry if the typical rules are turned on their head or tossed out . . . tends to put much more emphasis on characters, plotting, dialogue and surprise. The majority of readers who like Brooks are probably in category #1. Or, graduate to category #2. Some of the latter category people never want to touch Brooks again but some, like myself, don't mind going back once in a while for the sake of the memory. Maybe that makes a little more sense in the understanding? I think most fantasy readers need to start in category #1 before they can graduate to category #2 to appreciate the nuances that GRRM writes in his current series. If a first time fantasy reader were to read GRRM, I don't think it would be as enjoyable. Better to have read several other #1 books before GRRM. Anyway, hope that clarifies some. Remember, THE SEED IS STRONG!!! HUBBA, HUBBA!!!
labor User ID: 0798784	May 20th 5:19 AM Hm... IMHO if one has read and is fan of Tolkien, one cannot really warm to Brooks. The "similarities" are too jarring. Writing and plot also seem quite disappointing, IMHO. Maybe it is just because I'm not male, but Brooks always made me angry even when I wasn't a jaded fantasy reader. I enthusiastically read such rather crappy books as "Dragonlance" (the whole of the series, even with some fill-in franchise novels), Lackey, "TSR" or was it "Forgotten realms", mostly Salvatore's Drizzt etc. But not Brooks and not MacKiernan. They really seemed like very poor imitations of Tolkien to me. Not that I didn't object to rampant uses of Tolkien-like races in "Dragonlance" etc. But at least the stories, fluff as they are, are different. There is a writer in Russia who followed in Brooks steps and wrote a series something "of Darkness". Nik Perumov. The main character is a hobbit turned unparalled fighter and it ends with him defeating Feanor in a duel in the Blessed Realm. The "heroes" defeat the Valar, breach the border between the worlds and find themselves in another world. Yuck! Thankfully, the copyright issues didn't allow Brooks to go quite that far...
Jeff User ID: 8813033	May 20th 8:49 AM SOHP, I wouldn't disagree with the way you broke things down. I pretty much followed the path you set out, starting at No. 1 and moving to No. 2. I can "go back" and enjoy No. 1 stories if they are well done and not too derivative. But I agree with labor that, if you've read LOTR first, you really won't enjoy Sword of Shannara or Iron Tower. As for Brooks' other books, I haven't read them so I can't comment.
Kristin User ID: 9892733	May 20th 3:35 PM SOHP, the same thing happened to me when I started reading Dragonbone Chair. I was bored just about to tears, and I don't even think I got 300 pages into it. Then, about a year later, I started Williams' Otherland series, and really, REALLY liked it. I decided to give Memory, Sorrow and Thorn another try recently. It wasn't as boring as I remembered it. It's not all that exciting either, but I'm having an okay time reading it.
Son of Hot Pie!!! User ID: 0276214	May 20th 11:27 PM Jeff, I read both of those novels in high school when I wasn't too choosy so I don't remember. I certainly don't compare or analyze things as I do now so maybe that was a good thing. Didn't give SWORD another try, but I did try reading Tolkien again. THE HOBBIT was easy reading, since it was written more for children from my understanding, but after about 150 pages in THE TWO TOWERS, it was really getting hard for me. I'm not knocking Tolkien at all. His pacing was pretty slow in certain parts and unless you're getting into something else, it can be hard at times. Guess I'm a blockbuster child who wants things to move with several subplots on the side. Kristin, That's about where I got about two years ago . . . 300 pages when Simon and the little guy were on this long trip and Simon couldn't shut the guy up. You know . . . those long journeys where nothing big is happening so somebody just starts to yap and yap. :) I think I stopped b/c I wanted something to entertain me more. If a novel doesn't catch my interest in the first 30 pages or so, I drop it. There's really a lot of great books out there so I'd either try a new one or go back to one of my old favorites. And, if not that, I could always read a book on finance or personal power . . . or, just watch a favorite movie on tape. Right now, I'm reading David Morrel (spy thriller), rereading AGOT and COK while I do a book analysis chapter by chapter (pretty slow and about an hour or so per chapter) . . . when I'm done with that, my next fictional novel will be THE JACKAL OF NAR since it's getting good reviews here and elsewhere. And, I also ordered Hobb and Judith Tarr by the advice of GRRM on the Legend's board. Labor, I've read some DRAGONLANCE novels. I think most of them are pretty simple and easy going fantasy. I can't say the first original trilogy was beyond some enjoyment, but there were a few later ones that were very good; not great or superb . . . just pretty good. Never read the Russian writer. I imagine there were a lot of fantasy writers who started out using Tolkien as their source. Guy Gavriel Kay apparently did this and then moved on towards his own voice. I suppose a beginning writer can use some author to emulate, but if they're going to thrive and remain fresh, they need to develop their own voice, style and ideas over time. That's only one of the reasons I appreciate GRRM so much. He's developed a fresh idea, using History as his compass, but tossed things around to keep us on our toes. Also, unlike say Jordan or Tad Williams, he doesn't go into a ton of exposition for pages and pages and pages. For the most part, you'll notice that he slips a few bits and pieces in as the story moves forward. Criticisms aside, I have to tip my hat off to the fantasy writers I don't appreciate. Even the ones we make fun of on these boards, got past several others who were never published or whose manuscripts probably made the reader puke. Yes, even McKiernan, Jeff! :)
labor User ID: 0798784	May 21st 6:02 AM Well, I hate it when a writer makes free of another writer's world and either just retells the same story once again, but less well, or turns everything upside down, butchering the atmosphere with inferior writing. Warlike halflings who kidnap High Elven princesses and sell them on a slave market (as in one of Perumov's later novels) make me furious. Did he find his own voice? Difficult to say with someone who writes in a manner of bad translation from English. Kay's saving grace is that he is a fine writer. I love him even more than Martin, but still could never get into "Fionovar" trilogy. But I concede, that it is the best Tolkien imitation there is. BTW, Martin is not that original, if you mean that Martin's "fresh" idea was to depict a more or less "realistic" and ruthless medieval society in fantasy, with good characters dying and the shades of grey. Kurtz, Kay and a lot of Arthuriana were there before him. None of this diminishes my admiration for ASOIAF.
Conrad de'Medici User ID: 9189423	Jul 28th 4:09 PM Why is it people insist on comparing authors? I've just wasted half an hour of my life reading this stuff. Brooks is Brooks - Martin is Martin - Salvatore is Salvatore - Tolkein is a legend! Terry brooks bores the life out of me, Martin makes me think I'm living in the wrong era and Salvatore is a Tolkein clone, much like all the Dragonlance and Forgotten Realms novels none would exist without Tolkein and I would be saddened without them. But as for comparing Martin with Tolkein! The two are so unique its surreal. Tolkein was skipping with Elves and Goblins for the most part and spending his entire life creating a flawless history to a world he created. Martin, well, what can I say? He loves his history and I wouldn't want to argue with him about it. Hes just taken events, places and people and pushed them into his own world. If the world came to an end and the god's decided to choose a mortal to create a new one. They would have to go with Martin! Agh! This is long. I should end it. The only thing I don't want to see end is ASOIAF. (Sighs) Martin you are a LEGEND!